- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12009 MFA No. 7952 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7952 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, MYSURU TRACK CENTER, OPP: KSRTC BUS STAND, MYSORE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, NO. 28, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARI AMRUTHA, D/O LATE MAHADEVA, NOW AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT MANCHAPURA, RAMAPURA HOBLI, KOLLEGALA TALUK - 16. 2. C.N. KRISHNA, S/O LATE T.M. NAGARAJU, NOW AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO. 299, 20TH CROSS, RAILWAY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU - 01. 3. AJMAL PASHA, S/O MOHAMMED USMAN, MAJOR R/AT D.NO. 3093/1, CONVENT ROAD, LAKSHKAR MOHALLA, MYSURU - 01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. P.C. SUNITHA FOR, ADVOCATE R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 18.07.2023, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12009 MFA No. 7952 of 2016 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.27/12 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KOLLEGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.66,896/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.27/2012 dated 23.06.2016 by the Senior Civil Jude and J.M.F.C., Kollegal, the Insurance Company is before this Court. 2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 22.05.2008 at about 12.15 p.m., the petitioner along with her sister and others were proceeding towards Ramapura Government Hospital by walk on the left side of the road for getting administration of polio drops to the minor child, at that time, Mahindra Pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-22-M-6581 driven by its driver came from opposite direction and dashed to the petitioner and she had sustained injuries. Issue No.1 with regard to whether the claimant has proved that she has sustained injuries in the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12009 MFA No. 7952 of 2016 motor vehicle accident as she was hit by Mahindra Pickup vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-22-M-6581. It is the case of the Insurance Company that initially when eye witness has given a report that the vehicle Number is KA-10-8991. After one month and eight days, the police have changed this number to KA-22- M-6581. Basing on this, the Insurance Company contended that the vehicle is not involved in the accident and as the first vehicle was not having the insurance policy, this vehicle is implicated in the accident to get compensation as this vehicle is insured by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has negatived the said contention of the Insurance Company observing that the police after full fledged investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the driver of KA-22-M-6581. The Insurance Company has not questioned the said charge sheet. As such, the Tribunal has held that the said vehicle is involved and the accident has happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle and granted compensation of an amount of Rs.66,896/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company has reiterated the grounds that are taken before the Tribunal and submits that the particular vehicle i.e., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12009 MFA No. 7952 of 2016 KA-22-M-6581 is not involved in the accident and the question of Insurance Company challenging the charge sheet will not arise and there is no necessity for the Insurance Company to question the charge sheet. It is submitted that when the application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, the burden lies on the claimant to prove the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. It is submitted that in this case, the claimant has failed to prove that the particular vehicle i.e., KA-22-M-6581 is involved in the accident. As such, the order requires to be interfered by this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- claimant submits that the police have conducted a full fledged investigation and thereafter, they have come to the conclusion that the vehicle involved is KA-22-M-6581 and they have also filed a charge sheet. The evidence by filing charge sheet and the police records established before the Tribunal that the said vehicle is involved. The same is denied by the Insurance Company. They have to adduce evidence and in this case, no such evidence is adduced by them except examining the Officer of the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the Tribunal had rightly considered and passed an order and no interference - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12009 MFA No. 7952 of 2016 is called for with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that PW.2-eye witness had initially given the vehicle number i.e., KA-10-8991. Thereafter, the police have registered the complaint and they have conducted an investigation. In the investigation, they have found that the vehicle that is involved is not the one which PW.2 has mentioned, but it is KA-22-M-6581 and after full fledged enquiry, they have filed charge sheet. Now, it is the case of Insurance Company that the vehicle is falsely implicated in this case and it is not at all involved. If that is the stand of the Insurance Company, they have to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence, except relying on the initial FIR, they have not adduced any other evidence and they have failed to prove the same. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal had rightly held that the vehicle involved is KA-22-M-6581 and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. This Court finds no reason interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12009 MFA No. 7952 of 2016 ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal, forthwith. iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK